Why you are less free if you have to work more than necessary to care for your needs
I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.
- Nelson Mandela, 1964
Freedom is important. So much so that people are rightfully willing to die for it — and many have. Life without liberty is arguably not a life worth living. As asked in the movie Braveheart: what would we do without freedom?
Despite its importance, there is a commonly overlooked aspect of freedom: it can be meaningless. It is possible to be technically free, but for that freedom to be empty. In an article from 1975, the philosopher Max Hocutt identifies an important distinction between what people may do from what they can do.[1] Bob can shoot or rape his neighbor, but he is not free to do so. His country has laws against it, whereby if he performs such misdeeds (and is caught) then other people will punish him for it. Conversely, there are things Bob is free to do that he cannot do. No one would try to stop or punish him if he, for example, attempted to lift his car above his head. He is permitted to do so but is simply unable.
In Hocutt’s terms, what a person is free (socially permitted) to do is not the same as what they can do. One can be free but not able, able but not free, and any combination thereof. Freedom, in this sense, is what we are permitted to do, and not prevented from doing, by other people; and political freedoms are what we are allowed to do by our governments. Capabilities, on the other hand, are what we have real opportunities to achieve. As such, we can, for example, be free to become rich but lack the capability to become it.
Hocutt further observes that grants of freedom without ability are largely empty gestures.[1, p.261] In the west, we are free (as in socially permitted) to be and do many things. We have freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion. We are permitted to start businesses, invest in the future, and try our best to improve our lives. What we often lack, however, are capabilities: even if we are permitted to work less or become rich, we often lack the real opportunities to do and be so. As such, we can be considered free to, for example, work where we want, but we may not be meaningfully free to do so due to a lack of opportunities. To be meaningfully free, we must not only be allowed to be and do things but actually have real opportunities to be and do them. To be meaningfully free, we must be not only free but also capable.
Based on the difference between how little people could work to care for their needs and how much they actually have to work to do so, I posit that most people are not as meaningfully free as they could be. Exploring this thesis will require some work, which we will commence here. We will begin by identifying a necessary condition for being as capable as possible, and we will do so in a way that connects freedom, time, and health. This will enable us to conclude that a person who has to work more than necessary to care for their needs is not as meaningfully free as they could be.
Let us start by asking: what does it mean to be maximally capable? The most capable individual exists in a universe where everything is possible, and the only limit is his imagination. There are no opportunity costs and no costs in terms of time, labor, or anything else (unless he wants there to be). As such, he doesn’t have to work to make anything happen: he can just think it into existence. He doesn’t have to worry about making the wrong choices since he can always travel back in time and remake the choice later. He can do awesome things, such as create and destroy universes and instantly travel wherever and whenever he wants. One moment he can be windsurfing, and in the next, he can play chess at the center of a supernova.
By definition, any universe that limits us in any way, however slightly, must make us less than maximally capable. As an astute reader, you may have realized that you don’t live in the maximally capable universe. For us, being or doing something usually requires some time and effort. It may be as small as opening a tab in our browser or as undertaking as going to the moon. Where you and I exist, we cannot instantly be and do what we imagine. We typically have to imagine it and then make it happen through time and effort.
Who or what has brought these limitations? Well, for the most part, our physical universe has. It confines us to a 3-dimensional space and a particular position in that space. We experience time that only moves in one direction. Our lifespans are finite, and we are fragile biological beings with ridiculously low tolerance to heat, atmospheric conditions, pressure, chemicals, physical trauma, and radiation.
Here we will focus on two such limits which are fundamental to most, if not all, capabilities: health and time.
Health
To be capable of anything, an individual must first and foremost be alive. In their book A Theory of Human Need (1991), professors Doyal and Gough observe that physical survival is a precondition for individuals to achieve any other valued goals.[2, p.54] This, of course, makes sense. A dead person cannot be or do anything except for being dead.
Being alive doesn’t get you very far, however. Doyal and Gough go on to observe that a coma patient is alive but incapable of being or doing much else. Consequently, they argue that good physical health (and not only physical survival) is a prerequisite for successfully pursuing worthwhile goals.[2, p.56] In other words, you must at least be alive and healthy in order to be capable.
Health is also generally seen as important for capabilities in the literature. The American philosopher Martha Nussbaum, famous for her work on the Capability Approach, includes bodily health in her list of ten central capabilities.[3, p.33] The Swedish professor Per-Anders Tengland, who specializes in the philosophy of health, takes this a step further and argues that health is an essential component of all of Nussbaum’s ten central capabilities.[4]
The culprit is our universe. The laws of physics and our biological nature impose limits on our bodies and minds, such that we generally cannot do or be what we want without good enough health. Most of what we do is affected by even a mild cold. Whatever you want to do, some of your focus and efforts will be distracted by a runny nose, cough, or headache. The same is true if we are malnourished, dehydrated, freezing, overheated, injured, in pain, or suffering from severe diseases such as cancer or tuberculosis. Reductions in health mean that we are, to some degree, less capable of doing at least something.
As such, we will make the assumption that the better an individual’s health is (all else being equal), the more capable he is. To be as capable as possible, therefore, an individual must (at least) be in as good health as possible.
Assumption 1. To be as capable as possible, an individual must at least be in as good health as possible (all else being equal).
This means that if a person is less healthy than they could be, they are not as capable as they could be. If you are sick or starving, you have fewer opportunities than you would have if you weren’t. However, this does not mean that health is enough for being capable. Even if you are perfectly healthy, you can’t go to the zoo without enough money. Instead, it refers to the fact that you can’t do many things without good enough health. Even with all the money in the world, you can’t go to the theme park if you are too sick. In other words, perfect health is necessary, but not sufficient, for being as capable as possible.
Note that assumption 1 primarily applies to capabilities that rely on the individual’s mental or physical labor and applies less to capabilities that depend on the behaviors of others. A peasant who has lost his legs is less able to farm, but a legless king can equally well tell others what to do. A more modern example is that an increase in health can worsen an individual’s capability to get disability benefits. Just like in the case of the king, getting compensation from the government because you cannot work relies on the permissions and decisions of others and less on the actions of the individual.
Time
Let’s move on to the second factor. Time is a universal currency for all capabilities. Without enough time, you cannot enjoy an expensive yacht, be with your family, and do what you want with your life. Whether you seek to run a business, go to the moon, do art, or science, become a doctor, be wealthy, famous, or a politician, everything you may seek requires time. Without enough time, we are not capable of being or doing anything.
The reason for this stems from our universe. Time moves only in one direction and can’t (as far as we know) be reversed. We are also limited in what we can and cannot do at any given moment. We can’t be in more than one place at once, and we struggle to do more than one thing at a time. This significantly limits what we can do and creates opportunity costs. I can’t work as a nurse and fish simultaneously. And since I can’t reverse time, I can’t rewind and change my mind. Our universe, unfortunately (or fortunately?), does not come with a quicksave feature. We can only do one thing at a time, and what’s done is done.
These constraints make time a necessary and invaluable resource for all capabilities. No matter what we seek to be or do, we will need time to be and do it. As such, we will assume that the more time an individual can spend being or doing something, the more capable they are to be or do it.
Assumption 2. To be as capable as possible (to be or do something), an individual must at least have as much time available as possible (to be or do it).
This means that if an individual has less time than he could for being or doing something, then he is less capable than he could be to be and do it. A person that can do what he wants 40 hours per week is more capable than someone who can only do so 20 hours per week. As with health, however, having time is not enough to be capable. You can’t go to the zoo without money, even with the time to do so. But without time, you can’t go either. Time is necessary, but not sufficient, for being as capable as possible.
Also, as with health, assumption 2 mainly applies to capabilities that depend on the actions and behaviors of the individual. No matter how little time you have, you can still get disability benefits or be a king since they don’t require you to do anything actively. The assumption applies strongly, however, if you want to learn or create something with your own mind and muscles.
Health and time — at the same time
So far we have concluded that we must simultaneously maximize both health and time to be as capable as possible. Herein lies a dilemma. The universe is such that we, in most situations, must sacrifice some of our time to care for our health. No matter how much we wish otherwise, some of our time has to be spent producing and providing the things we need. But caring for our health means losing time, and prioritizing time means losing health. Both makes us less capable: caring for our health violates assumption 2, and sacrificing it for time violates assumption 1. Consequently, we must often compromise between health and time — both can rarely be simultaneously maximized.
We experience this dilemma on a daily basis. We want the time to do what we want, but we also have to work. If we don’t, we will eventually not be capable of much. No matter how much time we have, we can’t do much while starved, dehydrated, or sick. On the other hand, working means having less time to do what we want. We are forced to balance the two by sacrificing some of our time to be in good health. The health-time dilemma is a more fundamental version of the work-life balance.
Since we can’t simultaneously maximize both health and time, we have to settle for as much of each as possible.¹
Conclusion 1. To be as capable as possible, an individual has to (at least) be able to spend as little of their time as possible to be in as good health as possible (all else being equal).
How is conclusion 1 connected to freedom? Well, to be meaningfully free, you have to be capable. To be as capable as possible, you must have as much time and health as possible. Consequently, if you have to work more than necessary to be in good health, then you must, by definition, spend more time than minimally possible to be so. As such, conclusion 1 tells us that a person who has to work more than necessary to care for their needs is not as capable, and hence not as meaningfully free, as they could be.²
Our reasoning is based on universal aspects of existence. As such, the logic of conclusion 1 applies to most, if not all, sentient creatures and situations in our physical universe. It doesn’t matter which solar system or planet you live on or which country or culture you belong to. You can survive alone in a forest, be an ancient hunter-gatherer, a medieval peasant, a factory worker, an office drone, or the captain of an interstellar spacecraft. Our reasoning applies just the same: every unnecessary minute you must spend on health makes you less meaningfully free.
“But, some people don’t have to do anything for their health, such as the rich, elderly, and children. So, if I’m not like them, does that mean I’m not as free as I could be?” In principle, this can be true. It, however, depends on what we consider to be minimally possible and what we seek to achieve. If we, for example, sought to make only one lucky person as capable as possible, then the minimum amount of work would be zero. Others could do the necessary work for him so that he could do nothing. However, if we sought to make everyone as capable as possible, then doing no work is no longer the minimum.³ If everyone did nothing, then everyone’s health would deteriorate. In this situation, we would have to give everyone as much free time as possible, which would require sharing the necessary work.
What, then, is possible? How little time can we spend caring for our needs? A comprehensive answer is beyond the scope of this text, but let’s make some remarks. Earlier, we discussed the limits placed on us by our physical universe. There is not much we can do about our physical limitations — the laws of physics are what they are. But from the perspective of how much we need to work, the physical limit forms a theoretical minimum: we can’t work less than physics demands. As such, we can compare how much we have to work with the physical minimum.
The physical minimum depends on several factors (which we will explore elsewhere), but technology is one of the most significant. We can produce excessively more food per man-hour with a combine harvester than with a scythe. However, the universe isn’t the only thing to limit us; society is pretty good at it too. Other humans can make the situation worse — much worse — exemplified by slavery, exploitation, and coercion. Society can make us work much more than physically necessary to care for our health. At the same time, it enables us to push the physical limit through technologies we could never create in isolation.
As such, reaching the physical minimum in practice may not be possible due to social reasons. Some work may be necessary to get people to cooperate and do the physically necessary work. Examples include leadership, decision-making, and administration. Some work, such as law enforcement and psychiatry, is likely also needed to prevent or discourage destructive behaviors. Consequently, there are likely social limits to how little we can work that prevent us from reaching the physical minimum. These additional limits should be identified and also used as benchmarks.
How much society artificially forces people to survive can be measured by the difference between the theoretical minima and how much people have to work for their needs. I postulate that the difference is striking, even in contemporary western democracies. I suspect that most people have to work much more than necessary to care for their needs. If true, then the freedom so many have fought and died for is far less meaningful than it could be. We owe it to them, and to ourselves, to figure out if this is the case.
Footnotes
¹Here we tacitly make another assumption. We could be as capable as possible by sacrificing some health for maximum time, or vice versa. However, without knowing how a capability increases with health and time, we can’t know which one to maximize first. Consequently, to make conclusion 1, we have to assume that capabilities increase marginally more through an increase in health than an equivalent increase in time.
²Here we tacitly define needs (or basic/core needs) as referring to health. A working definition could be to define a ‘core (health) need’ as a situation-independent condition necessary for (at least) one individual to be in as good state of health as possible. This is a more narrow definition than that of Doyal and Gough, who define basic human needs as necessary conditions that must be satisfied for individuals to avoid sustained and serious harm, where to be seriously harmed is to be fundamentally disabled in the pursuit of goals which are deemed to be of value by individuals.[2, p.50]
³Theoretically, it is possible to have people do no work in exchange for what they need. The question is not what people ‘do’ but what they ‘must do’ to care for their needs. As such, it is conceivable that no one has to do anything to get what they need, yet voluntarily do the work anyhow. This situation would be possible, for example, through an unconditional universal basic income where everyone gets enough money to be in good health. Such a UBI would enable everyone to do nothing and still get what they need. The universe doesn’t forget, however. Someone would still have to do the necessary work. Therefore, the feasibility of the UBI hinges on people voluntarily doing the necessary work.
Bibliography
[1] Max Hocutt. “Freedom and Capacity”. In: The Review of Metaphysics 29.2 (1975). Publisher: Philosophy Education Society Inc., pp. 256–262. ISSN: 0034–6632. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20126774 (visited on 07/18/2021).
[2] Len Doyal and Ian Gough. A Theory of Human Need. en. London: Macmillan Education UK, 1991. ISBN: 978-0-333-38325-4 978-1-349-21500-3. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-349-21500-3. URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-349-21500-3 (visited on 11/04/2021).
[3] Martha C. Nussbaum. Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. en. Google-Books-ID: Gg7Q2V8fi8gC. Harvard University Press, 2011. ISBN: 978-0-674-05054-9.
[4] Per-Anders Tengland. “Health and capabilities: a conceptual clarification”. en. In: Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 23.1 (Mar. 2020), pp. 25-33. ISSN: 1572-8633. DOI: 10.1007/s11019-019-09902-w. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-019-09902-w (visited on 08/17/2021).
